Testing the TK Tar Baby

[poynt99]

.99,

You are arguing with the wrong person. :-) It was TK who said that, not me.
And, read my post above, I got the Joule Watt relationship now.

GL.

No, it was you that said the Joule was NOT a timeless quantity or unit.

Joule is NOT a unit without time in it.

It is in fact a unit without TIME, and I am supporting what TK said, not refuting it. The example I gave was to illustrate to you that the JOULE IS a unit without time.

[mrsean2k]

.99,

You are arguing with the wrong person. :-) It was TK who said that, not me.
And, read my post above, I got the Joule Watt relationship now.

GL.

GL, I genuinely don't think TK has mis-stated the relationship anywhere. But in any case, the important point is that there is near unanimity on what we mean by "Watt", "Joule" and "per", and how these differences are significant when referring to claimed results There may be little missteps as any further discussion unfolds, but that's to be expected when recently grokking something.

[Groundloop]

No, it was you that said the Joule was NOT a timeless quantity or unit.
It is in fact a unit without TIME, and I am supporting what TK said, not refuting it. The example I gave was to illustrate to you that the JOULE IS a unit without time.

.99,

Read my post 1803.

GL.

[Groundloop]

GL, I genuinely don't think TK has mis-stated the relationship anywhere. But in any case, the important point is that there is near unanimity on what we mean by "Watt", "Joule" and "per", and how these differences are significant when referring to claimed results There may be little missteps as any further discussion unfolds, but that's to be expected when recently grokking something.

mrsean2k,

Yes I agree.

But TK did say: "A Joule is a Joule even when it's sitting in a capacitor doing crossword puzzles or whatever they do in there and will be the same forever unless it leaks out." :-)

GL.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Spoke too soon.
I've been trying to think of an example where "Watts per second" would be a legitimate usage, both in everyday language and technical sense.
Imagine you have a heating element in a water-filled bucket, connected to variable power supply.

You start heating the water, with the dial set to 10 Watts. That's 10 Joules per second being converted from electrical energy into raising the temperature of the water.  Every second, you bump the dial up by another 1 Watt division. So that's 10 Watts during second #1, 11 Watts during second 2, 12 Watts during second 3. And so on, and so on, until you hit the maximum setting on your dial.

During the time when you were able to turn the dial, you could legitimately say that the rate of power increase was 1 Watt per second.  This is entirely different to a situation where a static value is applied. In that case, you are talking about a fixed quantity of energy in Joules being delivered in a fixed time period, usually a second. It is entirely incorrect to talk about 1 Watt per second. The energy transferred to the water is 1 Watt-Second. That is (1J / s) * 1 s = 1 J

Rosemary confuses these terms. It may be that she doesn't mean what she writes and expresses it poorly, but the way she applies these terms are not standard usage in either common parlance or in any technical sense.

Since you're now telling me what I think - then let me put in my tuppence worth.  If you are varying the rate at which the energy is applied to that bucket of water then CORRECTLY you would take the first 10 watts and then - over the next 10 seconds of the test under review, you would increase that wattage by 1 watt per second.  So that you would have 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 +18 +19 + 20 giving at total of 165 watts over a 10 second time period giving a total of 16.5 watts per second.  And then if you extended that time period and simply and continually applied 20 watts per second - then THEREAFTER - you could talk about a continual applied wattage.  At no stage during that 10 second period where you are adjusting that applied wattage can state that there is 10 watts of energy applied to that circuit.

To continue with this analogy.  IF you applied this 16.5 watts per every 10 seconds - and then stalled the application for a further 90 seconds - and then reapplied that EXACT same quantity of energy - and so on - repeatedly.  And you did this at each 100 second intervals, then the actual wattage would need be factored over that ENTIRE time period - being every 100 seconds.  Because during the 90 seconds when no energy is being applied then the water would NOT be heating at the rate of 16.5 watts per every 10 seconds.  If anything and without the required cladding to that bucket of water - IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE COOLING during 90 percent of that cycle.  Therefore CORRECTLY the ACTUAL wattage APPLIED to that element - in that bucket of water - would need to be factored as 16.5 watts per second for every 10 seconds.  And then zero watts for the next 90 seconds.  Which gives 16.5 watts every 100 seconds.  Which in turn makes the wattage delivered 0.165 watts per second and NOT 16.5 watts per second.  To EVER try and represent the wattage as 16.5 watts is ENTIRELY incorrect.

Watts is first and foremost a UNIT OF POWER OR ENERGY.  IF the term watt is defined as volts x amps - it is because that is correct.  But if the voltage varies or the applied current flow varies over time, that there is NO steadily applied voltage and amperage -  then that variation over time needs must be factored in.  And therefore the analysis of wattage explicitly and implicitly requires TIME.  Any attempt to determine wattage without factoring in TIME is also, by definition NOT therefore 'WATTAGE'.  IT IS THAT SIMPLE FOLKS. Watts and the concept of watts is defined as THE RATE at which energy is delivered or dissipated.  And if you apply a switched cycle - then you most certainly have a voltage that is varying over time.  And time is most certainly therefore required in the analysis of wattage. Instantaneous wattage analysis is ONLY appropriate to steady voltage and amperage values. 

If you are saying that I'm CONFUSED about this mrsean, then I BEG TO DIFFER.

Regards,
Rosemary
added